Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!chuq
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *real* change won't happen
Message-ID: <35808@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 21 Oct 89 07:07:28 GMT
References: <1989Oct19.003117.809@everexn.uucp>
Organization: Life is just a Fantasy novel played for keeps
Lines: 144

>: In other words, who the [****] cares?   All this fuss about whether a group
>: goes in a hierarchy that might give it 5% more distribution?  

We care. If we didn't care, we wouldn'y be arguing. Brad obviously cares, or
he wouldn't be sticking his nose into it, either -- he'd be unsubscribed to
the groups or not reading the messages.

>I think that the real issue in .namings is not distribution; it's cachet.

Actually, it's both of these and more rolled up into one big issue.

Some folks think sci.aquaria would actually have a higher quality of
material than rec.aquaria. That's a laughable argument, actually -- just
look at the existing groups in both domains and tell me that being in sci
makes a group inherently better. It doesn't.

Some folks think that sci.aquaria would make their group somehow more
official, serious or more satisfying -- and, perhaps, make them feel more
important for being a part. Frankly, a name doesn't mean any of those things -- 
a good group attracts good people, whether it be sci.math or
rec.arts.comics. The name doesn't mean squat about how good or important it is.

On top of this, there is a group of people manipulating the first two groups
for the hidden agenda of added distribution. They don't care *why* it's
named sci.aquaria -- they want it in sci so it gets a wider distribution.
Many of the reasons for this (europe, for instance) turned out to be
non-issues when push came to shove, but that's actually beside the point.
These folks were manipulating the net for reasons they weren't divulging. In
some cases, they were people who were manipulating people who were
manipulating the net and not saying *anything* in public at all, which is
even nastier. (And they know who they are. And they now know I know. Hi, guy!)

Finally, and probably most importantly, there is the issue of control of
USENET. The control of the namespace effectively gives control of USENET nad
what administration and/or power there is in something as effectively
anarchic as we are. That's the *main* reason why namespace arguments tend to
be as intense as they are [I will say this for the sci.aquaria discussions:
intense they were, but they almost never shifted over to abusive or flaming.
Which is a credit to everyone involved for moderating themselves and
sticking to issues...]. Whoever controls the namespace calls the shots. This
puts the Old Guard -- the folks like myself and Greg who were involved in
making USENET what it is today -- against the newer people, who have
different, sometimes conflicting ideas. 

None of this is necessarily bad -- out of conflict comes compromise and new
ideas. The conflict between old and new is actually good -- my main purpose
around here is really to try to keep things on a straight and narrow. I have
a philosophy of what USENET is, and while *nobody* can claim to control
USENET, I try to nudge it here and there. I'm sure Greg would say the same
thing. With time comes experience and knowledge of what works and doesn't,
and I try to use those to help USENET avoid making (or re-making) stupid
mistakes.

On the other hand, with time and experience also comes conservatism,
sometimes an ossification of the brain. New blood comes in -- sometimes it
tries to remake old mistakes, but sometimes it gets a new slant on things or
recognizes a fundamental change in the network we old net.fogies have been
ignoring. Being ossified, we net.fogies don't always agree right away, but
if an idea is valid, we can usually be swayed to accept it. 

The whole sci.aquaria business, then, has not only been an argument about
where to put a group (in reality, it doesn't really *matter* where, except
philosophically -- the volume is a drop in the bucket. But philosophical
principles *are* important -- or they aren't, at which point you throw them
away or fall behind with them. It's a process for showing up weaknesses in
how we do things, how we think about the network and where we're going with
it. It's brought up any number of points that need to be thought about for
me, including making me re-examine quite a few of my ossified (and not
necessarily true any more) truisms about USENET. 

It's part of the process of growth and evolution on the net. Even if nothing
concrete comes of it *now*, it's gotten a lot of people invovled and
thinking about issues, and that'll bubble up again at some later time.
That's good for the net -- it's how the net has always operated and how it
operates best.

>The implicit hierarchy that currently exists is interesting, and it shouldn't
>surprise anyone.  Hasn't our culture always valued logic over emotion, and
>the objective over the subjective?  The "top level" groups are for the most
>part technical in nature.  The "bottom" level groups tend more toward
>subjective impression and emotion.  Isn't this an example of our cultural
>history at work?

Interesting. Historically, the name space has had a *single* purpose -- to
help a person find the group they're looking for. It had (with the
exception of talk.all) *no* subjective ranking of the worthiness of the
group. Traditionally, no examination of the worthiness of the group was made
in determining the name, because all groups are equal. 

Obviously, at least parts of the net have added this new meaning to the
domains -- certain domains are now considered 'better' than others. The
question is, then, is this a true view or a false one? Are some domains
*really* better than others? Or is this perception false?

My contention, based on reading sci.all and rec.all, is that it's a false
perception. You are as likely to get a high-content low-noise, insteresting
group in rec as you are in sci. On the other hand, you're as likely to get
the idiots in a flamefest in sci as in rec.all. Functionally, on a purely
objective basis, the domains are equal.

The unanswered questions, then, are: (1) do we find some way to do away with
this false perception? Or do we accept it and try to bring it to fruition,
since it seems the net *wants* it to be true; (2) Do we integrate it in some
way into the naming decisions and attempt to steer 'worthy' groups to
'better' domains, or do we stick to an objective naming system? (3) How?

>I really like the idea of an anarchistic information/idea-sharing exchange.
>I really do.  It's possible that getting rid of the classifications might
>make a difference.

That's what USENET always is. Don't equate 'lcak of control' (i.e. anarchy)
with 'lack of structure' (i.e. chaos). An anarchy like USENET has to have
some structure to survive -- but it's a structure worked out by consensus
and compromise rather than by planning, organiation and control. 
Even in an anarchy, there are people that the masses look up to fro advice.
The difference in a social situation like this is that the advisors advice
on the whim of the people -- piss them off and they stop listening to you.
It's an effective moderating force on the advisors, actually -- and the ones
who try to push ideas that the public don't want are the ones that sit on
the side, whining and wondering why nobody's listening to them.

The reason why people like Greg and I are still around acting like
net.fogies is not because our ideas are better -- it is, I think, because we
understand the need for consensus, compromise and timing -- how to merge our
vision of USENET with the interests of the net and when to drop it and not
push the issue. I've retired at least three times over the last <mumble>
years, always for the same reason -- I lost the ability to listen to what
the net wanted, and became ineffective.

A good net.fogie gives the net two things: what it wants and what it's
willing to accept. If that matches what you think the net needs, great. But
it's easier to stop a stampede of elephants with a tweezer than it is to
take USENET in a direction it doesn't want to go, and the trampled bodies of
dozens of folks exist in the histories to prove that fact (including mine a
couple of times. Because I know how to do things doesn't mean I always
listen to myself...).

-- 

Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA
chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking]

Trust Mama Nature to remind us just how important things like sci.aquaria's
name really is in the scheme of things.